Legal Technicality Forces Houston To Turn Its Redlight Cameras Back On, Even Though It Wants Them Off

from the locked-in dept

Back in November, we noted that residents of Houston, Texas has voted to kill the city's redlight camera program. At the time we pointed out one tiny complication: the city had a contract with the vendor that didn't run out for another four years. However, it looks like the city just decided to listen to the will of the people (contracts be damned) and turned off the cameras. The vendor, ATS, sued. Now, samkash alerts us to the news that the city has lost a court ruling and is rushing to turn the cameras back on. The whole thing sounds like a bit of a technicality, though. As far as I can tell, the judge had originally rejected the plan to turn off the cameras, saying that the referendum itself, to repeal the law authorizing the cameras, had to happen within 30 days of it being passed. It did not. Thus, the judge found the referendum invalid. That actually happened back in June. The latest is that the city asked the judge if it could appeal his ruling, and the judge said no. I don't fully understand all the details here, but the city seems to be claiming that the rejection is actually helpful to them, in that it gets them to a final decision sooner, which they can appeal. Either way, the city says that it's turning the cameras back on, not because it wants to (though, they do appear to be making money), but because it wants to minimize the liability if it's found that they have to keep the contract.

Liability for decreased safety

If the camera company is forcing the city to turn on cameras against its will, and it is well known that the cameras decrease safety, then shouldn't the camera company (not the city) have the liability for the results of the decreased safety?

Re:

Are you not familiar with how these camera's work? They work exactly how you describe. The camera contractor processes all the photos, sends them to the police department. the Police Department sends out the tickets, the people pay, the police gives a percentage of the fine to the camera contractor as a commission on the work.

It is all quite clever. Makes a ton of money for the police department and the contractor. The police are happy because they get money without having to have boots on the ground. The camera contractor is happy because they get money from the suffering of others. Only the tax paying people are unhappy because they have a huge increase in the number of fines issued each year.

Less a technicality...

...and more a inconsequentiality.

It looks like the judge denied a request for an interlocutory appeal, which is an appeal of a ruling within a proceeding rather than an appeal of the final disposition at the end of the proceeding. Interlocutory appeals are generally permissive (meaning you have to ask for permission) while appeals of the final disposition are as of right.

I'm assuming the vendor sued and alleged that 1) the referendum was improper and 2) that the city's breached its contract with the vendor. The judge issued a ruling on the first question, but the issue of contractual liability remains undecided. It looks like the city is claiming to have requested the interlocutory appeal to defend the voters' decision - possibly more symbolic than strategic.

The appeal at the end of the proceeding would address all constituent parts, including the question of the referendum's legitimacy and the question of contractual liability. So really, this decision just means the appeals court will address this issue later.

I applaud the local government for trying to represent their people. But getting out of a contract based on residents disdain won't hold up.

The government is going to pay for those cameras one way or another (and by government I mean taxpayers). Either they can use the cameras and them pay let the cameras pay the contractor, or they can grab money from somewhere else to fulfill their end of the contract.

Re:

Re:

Interesting about the profit motive. That should tie nicely into my liability post below. In short: camera company should have liability for well known fact that the cameras decrease safety when an accident is caused. Can't wait for a judge to see decreasing safety for profit.

If the camera company doesn't get the profits, when where should they go? Otherwise this money would just disappear from the economy. Idea! Give it to a deserving crowd like the RIAA / MPAA who are entitled to profits, but are suffering due to piracy! There must be some connection between piracy and speeding. Oh wait, it is the non speeders who would now be depriving the entitled industries of their rightful money.

Simple solution is for the local City Traffic Court to automatically void all citations issued from the active camera system.

The local court is fully justified in doing so... because the legal basis for those camera citations is in formal dispute in higher courts-- therefore, there is NO current legal authority to convict motorists by that alleged camera "evidence".

This solution bypasses all contractual issues with the camera company, does not directly concern the state/federal courts, and can be handled completely by the city government.

Houston's camera contract

See http://www.thenewspaper.com for a full airing of this issue. In essence: Houston needs (wants) the money and the people don't want traffic cameras. The people voted the cameras out. Houston's lawyers DELIBERATELY wrote the camera contract so that Houston couldn't cancel for ANY reason without enormous financial penalties. So, the taxpayers get soaked. The politicians and the lawyers should be in jail but the best second choice is to vote the thugs out of office.

Re: Red Light Tickets

Re: That's a nice and convenient loophole

No. Figure that the way these things are installed is by the vendor, and the vendor does so with the understanding that they get a cut of the fines.

The vendor, thus, has a contract with the city to actually use the cameras and share ticket revenue. The contract probably stipulates that the cameras must be active for some minimum amount of years -- much like the way Verizon will subsidize and give you a cell phone with a contract that you use it for 24 months.

Re: Re: Re:

In Houston it is a separate law than if an officer stops you from running a red light. It is a civil offence and not a criminal offence, does not go on your driving record, and they are required to state that they cannot arrest you for non-payment when they send out the "ticket". In essence all that happens if you don't pay is a mark on your credit rating and annoying phone calls from bill collectors.

Re: Re: Re:

But that's Spaceboy's point. If the only requirement by the contract is to have the camera on and in place, they may not be obligated to ticket. Since I presume whatever cut they get is derived from the traffic ticket, maybe they will drop the whole thing if they can't get the money anyway.

Once again...

Of all the sneaky underhanded ways that city governments rob their citizens, this is one of the most obvious and direct... and I am continuous amazed at the general apathy of the population in letting these things get approved by politicians that allegedly answer to voters.

If I'm amazed people let them get away with these Yellow Light Cameras... I am downright ASTOUNDED the media does not persecute them for the nature of the contract.... giving a company a commission for fines, and then expecting them to operate in the best interest of the city/state? Why is it necessary for them to receive a cut of the profits, as opposed to a flat fee for equipment and a recurring fee for operation and servicing?

Re: Re: Red Light Tickets

Being on the receiving end of one of these types of tickets the cameras are actually really good at what they do. My ticket came in the mail and sure enough there was no denying that it was me behind the wheel. You could make out the Quicksilver shirt and my friends UH hat.

Side Note: I remember the ticket that well cause it was for 90 in a 35 and was 480.00 + summons.

More to Houston RLC scandal than meets the eye. City "rewrote" the contract to remove early cancellation clauses to THWART ANY BAN!

"The city, fearful of HB300, did not want to be forced to terminate the agreement upon the passage of a new state law and therefore, removed the termination provisions of the agreement entirely by clearly stating in the amendment that it 'remains in effect until May 27, 2014,'" Taylor explained. "The city also removed 'unless sooner terminated under this agreement' phrase that appeared in the original agreement

City of Houston and RLC VENDOR colluded essetially to IGNORE the VOTERS.

Hugh es accordingly denied a motion by the Kuboshes requesting to intervene in the case, the order which the Kuboshes now appeal. Hughes only allowed the Kuboshes to file amicus briefs in the case, denying them the right to object to evidence and make arguments and motions without the leave of the court. Under Texas law, courts must permit the intervention of a qualified voter to defend a measure election in an election contest.

"Here, the city has lost a case it purports, falsely, to 'zealously defend,' enabling it to continue pocketing $10 million in annual red light camera revenues its mayor does not want to lose," Furlow wrote. "Because the city waived the statutory and constitutional defenses appellants preserved, no one but appellants can defend the Proposition 3 election they petitioned for, organized, funded with $200,000 of their family's money, and won at the polls. Only appellants can protect their and their fellow citizens' constitutional and statutory right to reform city government through charter amendment elections."

Re: Re: Re: Re:

And a mark on your credit report can impact the future loan you apply for, causing a $100 offense to be worth potentially tens of thousands of dollars in future revenue loss/loss of interest on savings.

They can also prevent you from renewing your auto insurance, your registration, or renewing your license. One way or another, you'll be paying the fine.

Re: Here is a Solution

Why doesn't the city change their traffic bylaw to decrease camera related offences to $1.00.

I am not sure about how Texas laws are set up, but I am familiar with a number of other states, and usually the city doesn't have a choice in how much a fine is for a traffic offense because it is set by the state. However, in this case, since it sounds like the law is a civil infraction and not a criminal one (based on comments from others above,) it sounds like that would be possible. In California, where I am most familiar with the law, the fine for running a stoplight or speeding is set by state statues and the city has no control over the fine. However, for city ordinances, the city can determine the fine and can set it to $1.00. Depends on the law.

Re:

Basically? Because they don't do that, and it has been shown time and again that these cameras decrease safety, not increase. If you can't understand that, then you need to read more articles on this subject.

Speed signage?

Coudn't the city just erect speed signage directly in front of the camera that blocks its line of sight?

Unless the contract includes a clause that specifically forbids the city (as opposed to private individuals) from blocking the camera or specifically requires the city to keep the line of sight clear from city raised signage/obstacles then they effectively get the cameras turned off it not literally.

Re: Re: Red Light Tickets

camera's traffic

It seems to me the answer has been hit on , reduce the amount on the fines to $1.00 .The contract does or does not specify how much the fines should be ? If it is not profitable they will vanish .Here in this city Oak Ridge Tn. there are 2 systems , being new in the area, I got caught (once) $50.bucks . 35 mph on a turnpike . sorta caught me by surprise .But never again ,I know where they are now . They don't stop speeding in the residential area's where they are needed more. Kids don't play on a turnpike .